Bike left on ground behind car - now crushed!

vman

Yes, its difficult to envisage a scenario where the driver isn't at fault, unless the paper boy flung his bike under a moving car.

Hintza

Mistral001 wrote: »

The OP should remember every accident has to be reported to the insurer even if it is settled between the two parties themselves.

Would you report an incident like this to your insurer?

pitkin2020

sugerbear wrote: »

This every single time, same applies to car parks as well. The driver of the vehicle is responsible for it when its moving, so they either make sure they reverve into the drive and SAFELY drive off or accept the consequences when they knock something or someone over.

Saying that I would try to go 50/50 as if the OP is to be believed the cyclist left their cycle behind a car that had its engine running (not sure that I think that is the entire story unless the paperboy was particulary thick).

What grounds do you have to make an assumption the OP is lying??

sugerbear

pitkin2020 wrote: »

What grounds do you have to make an assumption the OP is lying??

Yesterday evening (in the dark) my son was in his parked car outside our house and the paperboy was delivering the papers to some houses at the same time. My son reversed to allow himself room to go but didn't know that the paperboy had left a bike lying on the road behind his car. My son reversed over it and it was badly damaged. He immediately stopped and disentangled it and the paperboy apologised and said that he'd borrowed it from his who would now go mad at him.

This ^^^ . What we are asking weight up and believe is that the OP's son was sitting in his car, with the engine running (and presumably his lights on because it was dark. The Paperboy then came up and dropped his bike directly behind the car and out of sight of the driver of the car whilst the engine was running. Doesn't make any sense unless the paperboy is not particulary bright or was deliberately trying to get his bike damaged.

You can apportion blame to the paperboy, but the driver has to accept some level of responsibility.

pitkin2020

sugerbear wrote: »

This ^^^ . What we are asking weight up and believe is that the OP's son was sitting in his car, with the engine running (and presumably his lights on because it was dark. The Paperboy then came up and dropped his bike directly behind the car and out of sight of the driver of the car whilst the engine was running. Doesn't make any sense unless the paperboy is not particulary bright or was deliberately trying to get his bike damaged.

You can apportion blame to the paperboy, but the driver has to accept some level of responsibility.

The OP gave the story and asked who was to blame, not for the story to have holes picked in it by people who can't take things at face value.

Your reading into something that isn't there, no wonder the OP hasn't bothered to reply. Your story isn't the same as the OP's, maybe the driver saw the bike that was leaning against the wall and decided to move it behind the car so he could drive over it.!!

neilmcl

sugerbear wrote: »

Doesn't make any sense unless the paperboy is not particulary bright or was deliberately trying to get his bike damaged.

Or simply wasn't thinking and on autopilot. Also, who said anything about the driver having his engine and lights switched on, bit of a assumption don't you think.

dggar

"My son reversed to allow himself room to go "

So presumably had had the engine on and one would hope he had the lights on.

Padz_2

What about this. The OP wrote on page 2:-

"I explained the situation as per my original post and then the paperboy piped up saying that my son wasn't in the car at all - he was walking down the drive when the paperboy arrived and they said 'Hi' to each other. He said the bike was already behind the car."

The account of the driver and the paperboy are completely different. Driver says he was in car. Paperboy says he wasn't. Why should we believe one more than the other? Who has more to lose and would therefore be more inclined to lie? We haven't got the paperboy's side just the OP.

kevin0410

just deny everything. It's not like anything can be proved

neilmcl

dggar wrote: »

"My son reversed to allow himself room to go "

So presumably had had the engine on and one would hope he had the lights on.

:wall: obviously when he reversed, but that doesn't mean he had the engine running whilst he was sitting, waiting in the car during the time the paperboy arrived and dumped his bike.